4 ms·
The mechanical and automatic nature of evidence gathering is a real difference, and goes well to argue against NSA-style warrantless crawling. I think for warr
by rtpg 11y ago
The mechanical and automatic nature of evidence gathering is a real difference, and goes well to argue against NSA-style warrantless crawling.
I think for warrants, though, we're looking at a different beast. By their nature they are targeted. And people have been compelled to provide passwords in the court of law(See [0]). The right against self-incrimination is relatively narrow, so as to not hinder the government's discoverability powers too much.
I think the one thing about this, though, is that people can already be compelled through legal means to unlock things. There is a reading of the Apple case that they are being compelled to unlock something for which they have the key.
Generally, it feels like outlawing encryption isn't necessary for the gov't to pursue the discovery phase of an arrest. There are already a good amount of legal means to compel people to unlock the doors.
[0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_Stat...
- marklgr 11y ago> And people have been compelled to provide passwords in the court of law You can have encrypted data that accept two different passwords, producing different decrypted data of your choice. This is like the 2nd code that mute the home security alarm when you are forced to do it, but still calls the police.
- techdragon 11y agoDuress codes and embassy grade encryption are an interesting topic. Attempting to address the real world implications of "rubber hose cryptanalysis" is increasing important.
- rtpg 11y agoIf you do that, and police have any evidence at all that you do this,then its useless from a legal perspective. The courts will demand for both passwords or you'll get some nice sentencing for contempt of court. Of course you could not tell anyone but that's a dangerous game.
- pdonis 11y ago> people can already be compelled through legal means to unlock things. Things that they own, yes. But Apple doesn't own the iPhone that the FBI wants to unlock. > There is a reading of the Apple case that they are being compelled to unlock something for which they have the key. No, they don't have the key. What the FBI is asking Apple to do is to redesign the lock so that the FBI can try as many different keys as it wants until they find one that unlocks it.